Wednesday, May 8, 2013

D.A.C. R.I.P.

by Robert Garland

I’m sure it won’t have
escaped anyone’s notice that what we voted for at the last Faculty Meeting –
rather too expeditiously for my liking – was the abolition of the Dean’s
Advisory Council as we have come to know and love that esteemed body.The fate of the D.A.C. wasn’t, of course, on
the agenda of that meeting. And perhaps its demise will go largely unmourned. But
there is no escaping the fact that the decision to strip it of its primary and
essential function of determining who and who should not be awarded continuous
lifetime tenure at Colgate University has the consequence of reducing it to an
essentially pro forma body, viz. corpse, of little significance.The objection to it in its present
instantiation is, of course, that it is an appointed committee that does not
represent the will of the faculty. It’s true that it is appointed, but its
members are appointed after nomination by and consultation with as many faculty
within the division as wish to nominate and be consulted, or at least that has
always been my experience, and that, as Robert Frost once memorably stated,
made all the difference. Will I end up voting for someone in another division
to be on the new P. and T. solely because I can put a face to a name? So how should
we in the weeks ahead appropriately and efficiently do the homework that used
to be the laborious and time-consuming task of the Dean in identifying the best
candidates for the job?

As a past serving member of
the D.A.C., I obviously have a vested interest in touting the virtues of the
old system. I hate to sound self-serving but I am intensely proud to have
served on that committee, which taught me so much about the university, about my
colleagues, and about myself. I can truthfully state that no body, whether
elected or appointed or indeed lighted upon by sortition (the Athenian way!)
could have tried harder to ‘do the right thing’. And the fact of the matter is that
it is often impossible to do the right thing when individual careers and lives
are pitted against the long term welfare and reputation of the university.
Under any imaginable system mistakes will be made. Casting one’s vote on
whether to award tenure is like playing God while looking down the wrong end of
the telescope with an acute case of astigmatism. Is there perchance an unspoken
consensus that we should be tenuring a larger percentage of the faculty than we
are at present and that somehow the new system with its much-touted
transparency will bring that about? I hope not though I fear yes. I take pride
(again) in Colgate being the place it is today. The new system will certainly
bring about more delays, more lawsuits, and more enduring rancor.

But enough of my own
rancorous observations. We’ve taken the decision to set out on that new road
and we’re set off and it’s that new road that I want to talk about finally here.
As it currently exists, the D.A.C. has virtually no control over the purse
strings of the university. It does not protect the curriculum. It is solely
because the Division Directors are empowered with the heavy charge of
determining who and who will not do be given a job for life at Colgate that they
sit on the D.A.C. with a modest degree of clout, both vis-à-vis the Dean and
vis-à-vis their colleagues in their divisions. And they need clout because they
are the faculty’s buffer, participating in university administration at a high
level. while remaining indisputably teaching members of that faculty. Though
their votes on tenure decisions don’t or rather didn’t translate into real
power, it gave them a degree of oversight in their divisions that made the job
eminently worthwhile. It made them accountable as administrators, and at times,
too, when the situation called for it, it made them outspoken.

In short I am concerned about
the effects of the new system for the governance system of the university. Far
from enhancing the faculty’s representativeness at the highest level, I am
concerned that we may have collectively undermined it. In sum, I urge the faculty
to be alert to the implications of their vote. As a born contrarian who takes a
long view of history, I look forward keenly to being proven completely wrong.

1 comment:

One of the ironies of the new P&T system is that each Divisional representative will be selected by an electorate for which the majority of voters are outside the Division. Perhaps this will not be a significant issue, but the system is not optimally designed to assure that candidates from each division--each of which has its own peculiar scholarship and teaching cultures--will be well-represented by individuals trusted to be the most knowledgeable about these issues. Time will tell...